So having put together that image from the Google Maps satellite view of my wife's street, I decided to scrap the hand-drawn form, and paste in (roughly) that same picture before submitting the form.
So this is roughly the form that will be getting submitted. (Except that the copy going in has her name, address, and other such information on it).
For those of you looking to do something similar, a copy of the form can be easily downloaded from the city (though it helps to read the information page first).
I also took the time beforehand to scan through the Guidelines for the Design and Management of Bicycle Parking Facilities, with a complete reading of section 5 (Bicycle Parking Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way). Worth noting from that section is that:
Any bicycle parking (whether required by the zoning by-
law or not) that is located in the public right-of-way must
comply with City standards and guidelines for all street
furniture and must be installed by City staff.
Also notable is the remarks on what is necessary for developers who wish to install parking in the public right-of-way in order to meet the zoning requirements for their building. In this case (where the parking is clearly their responsibility), it's a matter of proposing a location that is consistent with the city's policies, signing an encroachment agreement, and paying the city $200 for each ring and post rack installed. This is notable because it suggests how these racks could get installed in the event that the city's rack installation quota gets met installing racks in other places that need them more (yes, I am challenging those of you who complained that this series is a self-indulgent waste of municipal resources to saturate the city with requests for more-needed racks).
Finally, Section 5 of the bike parking guidelines refers to three other policy documents which would affect the installation of bike parking:
- the Accessibility Design Guidelines (particularly section 1.4.2)
- the Toronto Urban Design Streetscape Manual (which is not published on the web as far as I can tell)
- the Vibrant Streets Guidelines (particularly section 7)
These are probably worth taking a peek at if you want to get bike parking installed so that when you get a site inspection, you already know which locations for bike parking seem particularly suitable/unsuitable, and can free up the time of city staffers to go and check out other people's potential sites for bike parking.
Comments
Kevin Love
The cost is peanuts
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 19:35The cost of your post-and-ring stand request is utterly insignificant compared to the costs of cars paid every year by you and me.
For example, the $2.2 billion in health-care costs due to car pollution. Yes, that's billion with a "b." As in $2,200,000,000.00
That's a lot of zeros. And we pay it every year. Just in the city of Toronto alone.
Source:
http://www.toronto.ca/health/hphe/pdf/air_pollution_burden.pdf
Just imagine if $2.2 billion per year extra was put into funding Transit City? And the Bike Plan - only $70 million over five years, and we have to beg for every penny.
Banning cars would free up billions of dollars to make Toronto a truly great city to live in. Not to mention saving the lives of the 440 people killed by car pollution every year.
kiwano
Yep, but the budget for this
Wed, 02/04/2009 - 22:47Yep, but the budget for this year's bike parking has been set, and some people were complaining that my proposed location is somehow selfish and undeserving. Of course if they propose enough better locations that my request goes unfulfilled, then that demonstrates enough demand to justify expanding the program to include the installation of more bike parking next year.
The number you quoted is some 5500x larger than my best estimate for the total budget of this program (estimated by multiplying the $200 cost-to-developers of installing a single ring and post with the stated goal of installing 2000 new racks in response to requests). That would mean that it's got a really low bar to clear in terms of demonstrating that it actually cuts down on air pollution enough to justify its cost. In fact, the bar is so low that the simple fact of the racks being requested by (would-be) cyclists strikes me as being enough to clear it.
So I repeat again to anyone who can read this: go and request your own bike racks!
David Juliusson (not verified)
We need to set a standard of what is an acceptable bike rack
Thu, 02/05/2009 - 10:05I have stated before that we as the cycling community need to set a standard of what is an acceptable bike rack is. I see so many examples of poor bike racks. The New Toronto library has a spoke breaker rack that nobody uses but claims it meets all standards and so won't change it. Yet the next two closest to me have proper bike racks. The Valu Mart in Mimico put in racks that are too low. My local No Frills has unusable racks, yet the next closest one has good ones. Toddmorden Mills Museum has a rusty bar that counts as their racks. Spadina Museum has none.
For the most part, they are the ones who are trying. Yet there is no standard. The City hasn't set one. Maybe the Bike union can propose one. Whatever it needs looking into.
I don't want a bike rack that is someone's artistic impression. I don't want to have to tie my bike up to a pole at the TD Bank in Liberty Village because their environmental award winning branch has no bike parking. I just want a place I can lock my bike safely and in ways that won't wreck my wheel. It needs fixing.
kiwano
Actually, if you follow the
Tue, 02/10/2009 - 17:34Actually, if you follow the link I provided to the bike parking guidelines document, it includes standards on what constitutes an acceptable bike rack. It specifies number of points of contact, clearance from other obstacles, puts limits on vertical racks as a fraction of total bike parking for indoor facilities.
I imagine that part of the problem is that the guidelines get interpreted in the vein of a building code, where something that was acceptable bike parking when it was installed remains acceptable until someone tries to modify it. I'm guessing that there are some sort of legal obstacles for the city to try and impose requirements that existing bike racks be changed at non-municipal sites, but the city should probably show some leadership on upgrading the racks that it already has.
The EnigManiac
The city will reject...
Thu, 02/05/2009 - 00:52...almost any request if the ring-post is to be installed on a residential street, unless it is at a corner. That is precisely what I was advised directly by the two inspectors that arrived to determine if a ring-post was appropriate in front of my home.
They pointed out that they never install mid-block on residential streets for the following reasons:
Don't get your hopes up is all I am saying. The city is exceptionally hypocritical about being bike-friendly. They are, in fact, extremely bike-unfriendly and will likely reject or at least challenge every reasonable request. And then they will ignore all your protests. Be warned, that's all.
kiwano
The sidewalks are too
Tue, 02/10/2009 - 17:41The request isn't for the sidewalks, it's for the dead end of the street
The way things are currently done, the plow is backed in (not quite all the way) and then pushes the snow down to the open end of the street. This is, of course, on those rare occasions where the snow actually gets removed by the city (so far the street has been cleared all of once this year).
The opposite side of the street is a day care. Parents routinely park their cars on the street while they pick their children up. As for whether or not homes are destinations, I am vaguely concerned that the parking guidelines identify outdoor racks as "short-term" parking, and then state that residential areas requires "long-term" parking (i.e. bike lockers or indoor spaces). In that vein, I'm also prepared to propose that my wife enter into an encroachment agreement with the city to install bike lockers in the car-parking space in front of her house, and to argue that it would facilitate snow removal, since we don't care about the city just dumping snow on top of it the way that motorists on the straat would care about the same being donw to their cars.
I can promise that they're not going to have an easy time brushing me off.
BTW, what was the name and title of the person who gave you these reasons?
Also, the streetscape guidelines dictate that ring and post stands not be installed at corners (no street furniture within 2m of the corner IIRC, and bike racks are included as street furniture), so insistence that a stand not be installed mid-block is, in itself, insistence that the stand not be installed.
The EnigManiac
Name & Title
Wed, 02/11/2009 - 00:53I don't recall the inspector's name. He gave me his card, but I have misplaced it.
Good luck with your efforts. I'll be rooting for you.
They haven't brushed me off for good yet. :) I still have a few cards to play.
Tom Flaherty
Lord of the Rings
Wed, 02/11/2009 - 12:42The City's Bike Plan states where and why Bike Rings are to be installed.
I have to agree with their reasons for not installing on residential streets, unless you live in an apartment building. I understand that the location in question is at the end of a street, not a place I would want to leave my bike. Maybe there would be some value to getting some neighbours to support the request
There has been a back log of Bike Ring installations since the City decided that the current Ring is flawed and can be broken with the use of a lever (long piece of 2x4 or pipe). There is a new Ring that has been designed and tested and it should find its way onto the streets soon.
Try calling the number at the bottom of the form for more information, (416) 392-8400.